A Viewpoint-Centred Methodology to Design a Cooperation

Chapter 3 Viewpoint-Centred Methodology to Design Project/

3.4 A Viewpoint-Centred Methodology to Design a Cooperation

Fig. 2. The main organization scheme of the simulation tool

The simulation tool provides both actors with a means of testing their policies of cooperation in the context of the time window reservation process. In our approach, the notion of “cooperation policy” includes the information exchanged by the actors and the way information is processed on both sides, and more particularly the way the information is integrated into the schedule.

3.4 A Viewpoint-Centred Methodology to Design

The act of designing a new object (an industrial system, a software component, etc.) brings into play a great many technical, organizational, and financial skills to find solutions to problems such as architecture, technical constraints, signal transmission, controlling cost prices, managing and coordinating teams … over a period that may last for a very long time.

It can be said that all actors contributing one of these skills to the project has his or her “own” object that must be integrated with that of his or her partners.

The quality of communications between actors is therefore a first key point to the project’s success. Indeed, in this cooperation activity, the actors are exchanging partial, incomplete, and even contradictory information. The basic idea is to no longer only take into account the representations of the future “object” but also the object itself, its design process, and the transitory conceptions by each actor in all their manifold complexity.

The second key point is to take into consideration the sense of the object and the actors that give this object sense. In this way, the object to be de- signed and an actor participating in the design project are not isolated enti- ties: the object gets sense when it is connected to how it is interpreted by an actor. Any representation of an object is thus subjective and contextual.

This position is conductive to a systemic view of objects, actors, representations, and the design process: the object only exists when it has acquired sense for all the concerned actors. The object’s sense is then also the result of the designing process of the object.

Let us take the following toy example [2]: designing a new car (cf. Fig. 3).

Two actors a and a′ decide to design a new car. The designing process cre- ates an information system the kernel of which are the actors a and a′. Let us sketch the designing process. At first designer a communicates his conception – idea – to the other designer a′ by means of an expression e, which is made of words. Now a′ receives message e from actor a as she conceives it as an expression e′ which denotes a conception c′ of her own.

Then a′ sends back this expression e′ to a in order to verify his understanding of a′s conception. e′ denotes another conception c″ for a. Now, for a, if c = c″, a mutual understanding is reached and the design is successfully achieved. If not, the communication goes on between designers a and a′

until agreement is reached on the identity or no mutual understanding.

When an agreement is reached, it relates to the sole expressions, the concepts remain individual.

e = nice car

Designer a' Designer a

Conception c

Conception c' Conception c''

e'= little

e = nice car

Designer a' Designer a

Conception c

Conception c' Conception c''

e'= little

Fig. 3. Two designers, a and a´, with their own conception (idea) c and c´ of a car 3.4.2 Viewpoint definition

Let V = <A,O,S,E,C,V> be an universe of viewpoints such that

− A = a set of actors a1, a2, …, ai;

− O = a set of objects o1, o2, …, om;

− S = a set of contexts s1, s2, …, sj;

− E = a set of expressions e1, e2, …, el;

− C = a set of concepts c₁, c₂, …, c_k;

− V = a relation between A, O, S, E, and C;

where i, j, k, l, and m ∈ Ν.

Accordingly, the universe of viewpoints is a Cartesian product V = A × O × S × E × C.

A particular viewpoint is then denoted as V(a,o,s,e,c). Geometrically a particular viewpoint can be described as a hexahedra having five vertices and nine edges between them [2, 3] (cf. Fig. 4).

actor a

context s

expression e concept c

object o

Fig. 4. A viewpoint as a geometrical hexahedra

3.4.3 Semiotic interpretation

Viewpoint

A viewpoint comprises Peirce’s sign triad [3], the actor, and the situation:

who produces the sign and in what conditions the sign is produced (cf.

Fig. 5).

Subrelations inside a viewpoint

Among the subrelations, we distinguish those which imply concepts and thus carry on sense, the meaningful subrelations, and those which do not implicate concepts, the meaningless subrelations. Here are interpretations of some of the subrelations involved in a viewpoint.

Meaningful subrelations

I(a,s,c): “idea” relationship, for instance the starting point of designing where a has a concept c in a context s

C(a,s,c,e): intentional expression of the idea by a S(c,e,o): semiotic sign triangle (Peirce)

V(a,o,s,e,c): extensional expression, a viewpoint here

Meaningless subrelations

E(a,s,e): communication of expression e by designer a in situation s

actor a

situation s

expression e concept c

object o

object

concept expression

signified content mental image interpretant signifier

symbol sign

Fig. 5. Viewpoint with semiotic triangle

Design process

The design process itself can be observed as a series of transitions and transformations between meaningful and meaningless subrelations. Two levels of observations can be put forward: the individual level of each actor, and the general level of the collective designing process.

Individual designing process schemata

I(a,s,c) Æ conceptualization Æ C(a,s,c,e) Æ objectivationÆ V(a,o,s,e,c) Collective designing process

V(a,o,s,e,c)Æ conceptualizationÆ C(a,s,c,e) Æ communicationÆ E(a,s,e) When an agreement is reached, it relates only the expressions, the concepts remain individual.

3.4.4 Viewpoint-centred cooperative designing process principle

Let us use the previous subrelations to describe the designing process sketched in section 4.1 above between the two actors a and a´.

1- a in a situation s has an idea c, i.e.I1(a,s,c) 2- a gives it an expression e, i.e. C1(a,s,c,e) REPEAT

3- a´ in situation s receives a’s expression e, a´ receives it as e´, i.e. E1(a´,s,e´)

4- a´ conceptualizes it as a c´, i.e. I2(a,s,c´) ⊆ C2(a´,s,c´,e´)

5- a´ communicates, in turn, her expression e´

to a.

6- a receives a´’s expression e´ as an expression e", i.e. E2(a,s,e") which designer a has to conceptualize as I3(a,s,c") ⊆ C3(a,s,c",e") 7- a compares conception c" with c, whether I1(a,s,c) is similar to I3(a,s,c") or not.

8- IF c is similar to c"

THEN an agreement is reached (c is similar to c')

ELSE

a has to adjust and communicate his conception to a´ by means of expression e´´´, a' conceptualizes the received expression e´´´´, I4(a,s,c'''),and compares it to her own earlier conception I2(a,s,c´).

UNTIL the similarity between the conceptions is reached, or a and a' decide to stop designing

3.4.5 Cooperation policy

We define a cooperation policy as the instantiation of actors’ policies and behaviours among a set of potential policies and behaviours. In a first step, we focus on a set of potential policies and behaviours of the actors and some properties of the relationship between the two actors which are implemented in the simulator.

The relationship is characterized by the strength position between the two actors.

Project behaviour It is characterized by:

− The information reception behaviour, i.e. the interpretation of the information provided by the subcontractor;

− The project planning/replanning policies;

− The communication behaviour, i.e. transmission of data to the subcontractor;

− The degree of uncertainty pertaining to the project and likely to generate hazardous events.

Subcontractor behaviour It is characterized by:

− The subcontractor planning/replanning policies;

− The communication behaviour, i.e. transmission of data to the project manager;

− The degree of uncertainty pertaining to the resource and likely to generate hazardous events.

3.4.6 Cooperation policies and viewpoint definition

As far as a cooperation policy is concerned the universe of viewpoints can rely upon the following instantiation:

− A = {subcontractor decision-maker, project decision-maker, tool designer}

− O = {actors policies and behaviours, relationship characteristics}

− S = {moment-place}

− E = {speaking language, parameter choice, algorithm, mathematical model}

− C = {confidence, temerity, taking the other actors constraints into account, relaxation of one’s own constraints}

− V = a relation between A, O, S, E, and C

Examples

Here are three examples of viewpoints met in a cooperation policy:

1. <

Actor: subcontractor decision-maker Object: relationship characteristics Context: {24/06/05, ONERA}

Expression: {tool parameter concerning the position of strength in the relationship: ST>PJT)}

Concept: {the subcontractor is in a position of strength}

2. <

Actor: project decision-maker Object: communication behaviour Context: {24/06/05, ONERA}

Expression: {tool parameter concerning the communication behaviour:

0%}

Concept: {very confident in the project planning policy}

3. <

Actor: simulation tool designer Object: project behaviour Context: {4/06/05, ONERA}

Expression: {Mathematical model: the “possible time windows” Cp_i

which are considered for the planning process are computed according to the transmitted time windows by the subcontractor}

[ ]

∪

[ ]

m y

i y i y

i Ep Sp

, 1

∈

= (1)

with

%) 50 , ,..., , ,.., (

1 1

n n

B B A A f Sp

B B A A f Ep

= (2)

Concept: {the project manager is very suspicious: overestimation (50%) of the free time windows is suspected}

3.4.7 A viewpoint-centred method for cooperation policies design

A viewpoint-centred method can be defined in order to design a “good”

cooperation policy and to update the parameters of the simulation tool. The following algorithm summarizes this method:

REPEAT

The subcontractor expresses a set of viewpoints The project expresses a set of viewpoints

Construction of an experimental design

(N cooperation policies i.e. N combinations of viewpoint expressions)

IF the cooperation policy can be tested with the simulation tool

THEN Evaluation with the simulation tool ELSE

The tool designer expresses his viewpoint on the concerned object (which expression cannot be tested)

Confrontation of the different viewpoints in order to express a new behaviour or policy

Re-design of the simulation tool with the integration of the new expression

UNTIL both actors are convinced of the cooperation policy

Figure 6 illustrates this algorithm.

n Viewpoints expression

o Cooperation policy (to be evaluated)

qq Simulation

p p

p Tool parameters setting

p pp

r r

r ^Evaluation

tt ^Conclusion

Re-design of the simulation tool

Implemented policy

yes no

Viewpoints expression

q o

o Cooperation policy

(to be implemented)